5 ms·

From their FAQ[1]: Q: Can Peer5 ever harm user experience? A: No. Peer5 can never deteriorate user experience. Q: How does Peer5 impact a user's upstream ban

From their FAQ[1]: Q: Can Peer5 ever harm user experience? A: No. Peer5 can never deteriorate user experience. Q: How does Peer5 impact a user's upstream bandwidth? A: Peer5 works with whatever bandwidth is free for upstream use and will not impact other applications that require uploads at the same time as Peer5. Changes to upstream bandwidth are unnoticeable to the end user. --- The concept is great, but until every consumer internet service comes with unmetered bandwidth, this kind of peer-to-peer CDN must be treated as what it is: a dark pattern from content providers who are looking to save their own bottom line while directly harming their customers in the process. For every $1 a content provider saves by using this service, their users who happen to not have unmetered bandwidth will collectively pay dozens or hundreds of times that cost in overage fees to their ISPs. The fact that any business would use this technology and shrug their users' suffering off as an externality is disgusting to me. [1] https://www.peer5.com/faq https://www.peer5.com/faq

detaro 10y ago
> A: Peer5 works with whatever bandwidth is free for upstream use and will not impact other applications that require uploads at the same time as Peer5. That would also require WebRTC traffic to be properly tagged as low-priority and general consumer gear being any good at QoS, neither of which is the case. Of course parallel uploads can and will have a negative effect.
- shacharz 10y ago
  Part of WebRTC's requirements [1] is to be fair on competing TCP connections. This is a very good point, because I agree with you that in general parallel connections cause each connection to have less throughput, but if those connections have a mutual goal to download the same content it can actually increase the overall throughput than downloading that content via a single TCP connection. That's especially true when those connections are to different sources which can workaround specific network issues you might have in a single connection. Actually the value proposition for our customers is to improve the QoS. And we've shown that's the case in customer case studies. [1] https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-10#page-4 https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-chan...
whadar 10y ago
This is what we're trying to do now: 1. Make ISPs zero-rate any upstream p2p bandwidth. Most of that bandwidth is anyway inside their network, so it's good for them. Until that happens: 2. Avoid the usage of upstream bandwidth when we detect it's metered.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Yeah, I was about to say that the GP is overly pessimistic on the technology, since you could always detect metered ISPs and do something different for those (no upstream but lower priority downstream in exchange, for example). In the end, consumers of this CDN also don't want to be known as "that website which caused a 4x internet bill".
  - developer2 10y ago
    >> you could always detect metered ISPs and do something different for those I didn't downvote, but this isn't possible for nearly all users. Whether or not you are metered isn't per-ISP, it depends on your monthly plan with the ISP. Most ISPs serve the majority of their users on metered, with some users paying for the high-end unmetered plans. There is no way to know whether a particular user is metered or unmetered.
Bombthecat 10y ago
Microsoft is doing is same. And it seems like users don't have problem with that.
huancle 10y ago
Let's take a step back and consider the problem that Peer5 is trying to solve: poor stream quality, especially as audience size grows. If you don't believe that this problem is real, then why do we see stories like these in the press: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14257936/directv-now-errors-complaints-att http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14257936/directv-now-error... http://www.businessinsider.com/directv-now-att-outages-2016-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/directv-now-att-outages-2016-... http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/08/14/optus-epl-stream-freezing/ http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/08/14/optus-ep... http://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/20/world/game-groans-hbo-why-streaming-still-fails http://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/20/world/game-groans-hbo-... Peer5's goal in life is not to give content providers / broadcasters a way to somehow cheat on their CDN bills at the expense of their paying subscribers. Rather, it is to improve the user experience (and value proposition) for everyone who is paying to stream video. I doubt anyone would find that "disgusting".

detaro 10y ago

> A: Peer5 works with whatever bandwidth is free for upstream use and will not impact other applications that require uploads at the same time as Peer5. That would also require WebRTC traffic to be properly tagged as low-priority and general consumer gear being any good at QoS, neither of which is the case. Of course parallel uploads can and will have a negative effect.

shacharz 10y ago
Part of WebRTC's requirements [1] is to be fair on competing TCP connections. This is a very good point, because I agree with you that in general parallel connections cause each connection to have less throughput, but if those connections have a mutual goal to download the same content it can actually increase the overall throughput than downloading that content via a single TCP connection. That's especially true when those connections are to different sources which can workaround specific network issues you might have in a single connection. Actually the value proposition for our customers is to improve the QoS. And we've shown that's the case in customer case studies. [1] https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-10#page-4 https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-chan...

whadar 10y ago

This is what we're trying to do now: 1. Make ISPs zero-rate any upstream p2p bandwidth. Most of that bandwidth is anyway inside their network, so it's good for them. Until that happens: 2. Avoid the usage of upstream bandwidth when we detect it's metered.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Yeah, I was about to say that the GP is overly pessimistic on the technology, since you could always detect metered ISPs and do something different for those (no upstream but lower priority downstream in exchange, for example). In the end, consumers of this CDN also don't want to be known as "that website which caused a 4x internet bill".
- developer2 10y ago
  >> you could always detect metered ISPs and do something different for those I didn't downvote, but this isn't possible for nearly all users. Whether or not you are metered isn't per-ISP, it depends on your monthly plan with the ISP. Most ISPs serve the majority of their users on metered, with some users paying for the high-end unmetered plans. There is no way to know whether a particular user is metered or unmetered.

Bombthecat 10y ago

Microsoft is doing is same. And it seems like users don't have problem with that.

huancle 10y ago

Let's take a step back and consider the problem that Peer5 is trying to solve: poor stream quality, especially as audience size grows. If you don't believe that this problem is real, then why do we see stories like these in the press: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14257936/directv-now-errors-complaints-att http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14257936/directv-now-error... http://www.businessinsider.com/directv-now-att-outages-2016-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/directv-now-att-outages-2016-... http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/08/14/optus-epl-stream-freezing/ http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/08/14/optus-ep... http://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/20/world/game-groans-hbo-why-streaming-still-fails http://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/20/world/game-groans-hbo-... Peer5's goal in life is not to give content providers / broadcasters a way to somehow cheat on their CDN bills at the expense of their paying subscribers. Rather, it is to improve the user experience (and value proposition) for everyone who is paying to stream video. I doubt anyone would find that "disgusting".